Where are they now: Matt LaPorta

[The3rdManIn.com]

Matt LaPorta was once a highly touted prospect. Find out what the former University of Florida star is up to now after injuries derailed his career. http://www.the3rdmanin.com/now-matt-laporta/

[Austin Tatious]

Good info.

 

The first red flag is that his junior year of college, he hit .240. He cranked his senior year as he was among the oldest and most experienced college player.

 

Apples to apples, he was nothing special as a younger player.

 

The Brewers need to do a deep dive into what is going wrong fundamentally with their logic in the first round. Go through your picks and compare them with, say, the Cards and look through their documentation in advance of those drafts and compare with players that did work out for other teams. While the Brewers foundered in the 1st round, the Cards picked up Shelby Miller, Wacha, Piscotty et al. I assume Stearns is already on an advanced study on this. You can't hide your head in the sand and just say it's bad luck. There is a fundamentally a defect in the organization's 1st round thinking.

[dacbrewers]

Good info.

 

The first red flag is that his junior year of college, he hit .240. He cranked his senior year as he was among the oldest and most experienced college player.

 

Apples to apples, he was nothing special as a younger player.

 

The Brewers need to do a deep dive into what is going wrong fundamentally with their logic in the first round. Go through your picks and compare them with, say, the Cards and look through their documentation in advance of those drafts and compare with players that did work out for other teams. While the Brewers foundered in the 1st round, the Cards picked up Shelby Miller, Wacha, Piscotty et al. I assume Stearns is already on an advanced study on this. You can't hide your head in the sand and just say it's bad luck. There is a fundamentally a defect in the organization's 1st round thinking.

 

Good Article on LaPorta. I totally agree with you on the first round funk. Stearns will definitely do a better job of analyzing future picks and that's part of why he was brought in.

[bork]

Is the Brewer's track record really that much worse than the rest of baseball for first rounds picks? I've seen analysis stating anywhere from 66%-73% of first round picks make it to the majors. In Melvin's first 9 drafts (2003-2011), 7 players made it to the majors and a few of those were key trade chips. That's 77%. Of the two that missed, you have a clunker (Arnett) and bad luck (Covey - And he could still make it to the majors). The big problem was overall drafts were poor. It will be key to see how the 2012 and later drafts end up.

[Roderick]

and bad luck (Covey - And he could still make it to the majors). ....

 

Definitely wouldn't count Covey as a red mark on the ledger. Didn't they pick up a 1st rounder the following year to replace him. I wouldn't count that pick as part of the hit/miss percentages.

[LouisEly]

The Brewers need to do a deep dive into what is going wrong fundamentally with their logic in the first round. Go through your picks and compare them with, say, the Cards and look through their documentation in advance of those drafts and compare with players that did work out for other teams. While the Brewers foundered in the 1st round, the Cards picked up Shelby Miller, Wacha, Piscotty et al. I assume Stearns is already on an advanced study on this. You can't hide your head in the sand and just say it's bad luck. There is a fundamentally a defect in the organization's 1st round thinking.

The Cardinals also drafted Chris Lambert, Tyler Greene, Adam Ottavino, Clayton Mortensen, Pete Kozma, Brett Wallace, and Zack Cox in the first round. Let's not pretend that they've hit on all of their first round draft picks because they haven't. According to B-R, the highest career WAR of any player the Cardinals drafted in the first round (including supplemental picks) since 2000 is Colby Rasmus' 18.1. Lance Lynn is next with 11.2. Braun (42.7), Fielder (23.8), Lawrie (15.1), and Weeks (11.2) are equal or better. Yes, most of those were drafted higher than the Cardinals usually pick, but 2/3rds of the players you referenced above (Miller, Wacha) were drafted before the Brewers had a draft pick those years. Talent levels vary with pick slots from year to year, and all bets are off prior to draft pick compensation in 2011 anyway. The Cardinals haven't had top 10 picks since the 90's - they hit on one (Drew, but flipped him for Wainwright), not so much with the other (Braden Looper, #3 overall). Braun is equal with Drew, Weeks better than Looper.

 

(This is known as the "recency effect" - people tend to place more weight on recent events even if events further in the past have just as much weight.)

 

The Cardinals made their hay with trades and free agent signings. They flipped Drew (who should never have been a Cardinal to begin with) for Wainwright. They flipped mediocre first round draft picks (Wallace, Mortensen) for Holliday. They signed Chris Carpenter as a free agent. (They signed Kyle Lohse as a free agent too.) Yes, they drafted Molina (the Brewers drafted Lucroy) and Pujols (nobody had him on their radar). And they re-signed all of those guys except Pujols to big, long-term contracts well into their mid-late 30's (Pujols to a big contract through age 31, Lohse to a big contract through age 33).

[Outlander]

The Laporta pick was a great pick in the first round as it netted them Sabathia and there first playoff appearance in 26 years. Don't care what he did in the majors.

[MrTPlush]

The Laporta pick was a great pick in the first round as it netted them Sabathia and there first playoff appearance in 26 years. Don't care what he did in the majors.

 

Exactly and Covey doesn't count. Who knows if LaPorta would have been good or not here. He could have turned into a MLB player for all we know.

[Austin Tatious]

The Laporta pick was a great pick in the first round as it netted them Sabathia and there first playoff appearance in 26 years. Don't care what he did in the majors.

 

You're missing the point. The Brewers had failed thinking at the seventh pick in the draft and were unable to draft a player that made an impact. It doesn't matter that he was traded. The question is that, at the time of the draft, did the Brewers identify a talent that made an impact as a player, whether here or anywhere. They drafted a kid who hit .240 as a college junior and then jumped on him after a nice senior season. The Brewers failed to draft an impact player, at seventh overall.

[Austin Tatious]

The Brewers need to do a deep dive into what is going wrong fundamentally with their logic in the first round. Go through your picks and compare them with, say, the Cards and look through their documentation in advance of those drafts and compare with players that did work out for other teams. While the Brewers foundered in the 1st round, the Cards picked up Shelby Miller, Wacha, Piscotty et al. I assume Stearns is already on an advanced study on this. You can't hide your head in the sand and just say it's bad luck. There is a fundamentally a defect in the organization's 1st round thinking.

The Cardinals also drafted Chris Lambert, Tyler Greene, Adam Ottavino, Clayton Mortensen, Pete Kozma, Brett Wallace, and Zack Cox in the first round. Let's not pretend that they've hit on all of their first round draft picks because they haven't. According to B-R, the highest career WAR of any player the Cardinals drafted in the first round (including supplemental picks) since 2000 is Colby Rasmus' 18.1. Lance Lynn is next with 11.2. Braun (42.7), Fielder (23.8), Lawrie (15.1), and Weeks (11.2) are equal or better. Yes, most of those were drafted higher than the Cardinals usually pick, but 2/3rds of the players you referenced above (Miller, Wacha) were drafted before the Brewers had a draft pick those years. Talent levels vary with pick slots from year to year, and all bets are off prior to draft pick compensation in 2011 anyway. The Cardinals haven't had top 10 picks since the 90's - they hit on one (Drew, but flipped him for Wainwright), not so much with the other (Braden Looper, #3 overall). Braun is equal with Drew, Weeks better than Looper.

 

(This is known as the "recency effect" - people tend to place more weight on recent events even if events further in the past have just as much weight.)

 

The Cardinals made their hay with trades and free agent signings. They flipped Drew (who should never have been a Cardinal to begin with) for Wainwright. They flipped mediocre first round draft picks (Wallace, Mortensen) for Holliday. They signed Chris Carpenter as a free agent. (They signed Kyle Lohse as a free agent too.) Yes, they drafted Molina (the Brewers drafted Lucroy) and Pujols (nobody had him on their radar). And they re-signed all of those guys except Pujols to big, long-term contracts well into their mid-late 30's (Pujols to a big contract through age 31, Lohse to a big contract through age 33).

 

You cannot seriously be arguing that the Cardinals draft just as bad as Milwaukee. That's beyond absurd to the point of not having credibility. What we care about are recent picks because that is what is happening now with the big league club. Whether the Brewers drafted Robin Yount in 1974 is irrelevant because it is different scouting. Recency effect just shows you that, in their current staffing, the Cardinals have done much better than Milwaukee. This isn't some random statistic. There are scouts in place responsible for identifying players for drafting. There is a reason why the Cardinals are good and stay good. They re-tool without falling apart. Anyone can cherry pick bad choices. You're barking up the wrong tree. You don't want to go over a comparison of records. They win World Series, dominate the Brewers like a big brother, and re-tool without falling apart.

 

I love the Brewers but I don't believe in hiding your head in the sand and pretending everything is glorious. Since 2006, the only impact draftees have been Odorizzi and Lawrie. No one here is pretending that Coulter or Roche are impact players. I haven't seen any recent posts projecting them in our future lineups so we can all agree on that. They could improve, but it will be an upset if that happens. After 2012, we are looking at Medeiros, Ray, Kirby, and Clark. Let's hope for the best there. Will any of them be above average league players? You'd have to say incomplete right now but there are concerns about projectability. Since 2006, the Brewers top picks are not doing well. That's not an insignificant sample. Making excuses and pretending nothing is wrong is unbecoming.

[Fear The Chorizo]

If the Brewers didn't draft LaPorta, the Sabathia trade doesn't happen and the Brewers arguably would have had zero playoff appearances over the last decade (If that 2008 team hadn't made the postseason, other trades could have made moving MLB pieces that would've fractured the team that won the division in 2011).

 

So, drafting him 7th overall was worth it - his impact for the Brewers was allowing them to bring in an Ace pitcher for a playoff run. On the day he was drafted, many wondered "why draft another 1B when you have Fielder?" - the answer to that question early on was he could be a fast riser and a potential trade chip. If the MLB FA compensation rules weren't so stupid, drafting LaPorta could've wound up with the Brewers getting Mike Trout, who was picked 25th in the first round and the Brewers were all over that spring.

[Surhoff5]

 

You cannot seriously be arguing that the Cardinals draft just as bad as Milwaukee. That's beyond absurd to the point of not having credibility. What we care about are recent picks because that is what is happening now with the big league club. Whether the Brewers drafted Robin Yount in 1974 is irrelevant because it is different scouting. Recency effect just shows you that, in their current staffing, the Cardinals have done much better than Milwaukee. This isn't some random statistic. There are scouts in place responsible for identifying players for drafting. There is a reason why the Cardinals are good and stay good. They re-tool without falling apart. Anyone can cherry pick bad choices. You're barking up the wrong tree. You don't want to go over a comparison of records. They win World Series, dominate the Brewers like a big brother, and re-tool without falling apart.

 

I love the Brewers but I don't believe in hiding your head in the sand and pretending everything is glorious. Since 2006, the only impact draftees have been Odorizzi and Lawrie. No one here is pretending that Coulter or Roche are impact players. I haven't seen any recent posts projecting them in our future lineups so we can all agree on that. They could improve, but it will be an upset if that happens. After 2012, we are looking at Medeiros, Ray, Kirby, and Clark. Let's hope for the best there. Will any of them be above average league players? You'd have to say incomplete right now but there are concerns about projectability. Since 2006, the Brewers top picks are not doing well. That's not an insignificant sample. Making excuses and pretending nothing is wrong is unbecoming.

 

Based on your logic, who cares what the Brewers did in 2006? Montgomery came on board in late 2014. That is really all that we need to judge at this point. He has since drafted three guys in the first round, two of which are in the top-60 prospects in all of baseball. Obviously we have no idea if any of the three that will pan out, but I don't care what Seid did; I care what Montgomery is doing.

[Austin Tatious]

 

You cannot seriously be arguing that the Cardinals draft just as bad as Milwaukee. That's beyond absurd to the point of not having credibility. What we care about are recent picks because that is what is happening now with the big league club. Whether the Brewers drafted Robin Yount in 1974 is irrelevant because it is different scouting. Recency effect just shows you that, in their current staffing, the Cardinals have done much better than Milwaukee. This isn't some random statistic. There are scouts in place responsible for identifying players for drafting. There is a reason why the Cardinals are good and stay good. They re-tool without falling apart. Anyone can cherry pick bad choices. You're barking up the wrong tree. You don't want to go over a comparison of records. They win World Series, dominate the Brewers like a big brother, and re-tool without falling apart.

 

I love the Brewers but I don't believe in hiding your head in the sand and pretending everything is glorious. Since 2006, the only impact draftees have been Odorizzi and Lawrie. No one here is pretending that Coulter or Roche are impact players. I haven't seen any recent posts projecting them in our future lineups so we can all agree on that. They could improve, but it will be an upset if that happens. After 2012, we are looking at Medeiros, Ray, Kirby, and Clark. Let's hope for the best there. Will any of them be above average league players? You'd have to say incomplete right now but there are concerns about projectability. Since 2006, the Brewers top picks are not doing well. That's not an insignificant sample. Making excuses and pretending nothing is wrong is unbecoming.

 

Based on your logic, who cares what the Brewers did in 2006? Montgomery came on board in late 2014. That is really all that we need to judge at this point. He has since drafted three guys in the first round, two of which are in the top-60 prospects in all of baseball. Obviously we have no idea if any of the three that will pan out, but I don't care what Seid did; I care what Montgomery is doing.

 

Fair enough. Let's hope Montgomery looks at the comedy of errors in Brewer 1st round drafts over the last decade and figures out how to turn around the poor evaluating and projecting that has plagued the organization. I am all for giving Montgomery a fair chance. I suspect he's going to hit on some post first round picks among Demi Orimoleye, Chad McClanahan, Lucas Erceg, Payton Henry and some others.

 

A couple of points, though. 2006 was ten years ago, so it's a nice round number where we can look at a fair sample size. Players drafted in 2006 are still playing.

 

Second, as you no doubt are aware, Montgomery came through Milwaukee before he went to Zona. He was part of the earlier process, so his fingerprints can be found in what was done. Drafting is the culmination of scores of information from scouts, as well as the department's processing, analyzing, etc. It's not as if the scouting director decrees some selection in a vacuum. The whole process in that decision tree needs to be considered. What was it that made Milwaukee think a .240 hitter his junior year and then got hot his senior year made him worth the seventh overall pick? These types of evaluations need to be examined and corrected.

 

It's worth pointing out that the Brewers have had a boat load of high draft picks. If you look at where Kodi Medeiros was taken as a recent benchmark, 12th overall, the Cardinals haven't picked higher than 13th since 1998. There are factors for that as others have pointed out. But a contributor is also their drafting. In contrast, the Brewers have had numerous draftees that high or higher.

[Austin Tatious]

If the Brewers didn't draft LaPorta, the Sabathia trade doesn't happen and the Brewers arguably would have had zero playoff appearances over the last decade (If that 2008 team hadn't made the postseason, other trades could have made moving MLB pieces that would've fractured the team that won the division in 2011).

 

So, drafting him 7th overall was worth it - his impact for the Brewers was allowing them to bring in an Ace pitcher for a playoff run. On the day he was drafted, many wondered "why draft another 1B when you have Fielder?" - the answer to that question early on was he could be a fast riser and a potential trade chip. If the MLB FA compensation rules weren't so stupid, drafting LaPorta could've wound up with the Brewers getting Mike Trout, who was picked 25th in the first round and the Brewers were all over that spring.

 

No. Virtually anyone drafted seventh overall will be perceived as having that kind of value as a prospect. We are not here to re-litigate the Sabathia trade. Rather, LaPorta illustrates player identification at a premium draft position.

[LouisEly]

You cannot seriously be arguing that the Cardinals draft just as bad as Milwaukee.

 

No, I'm saying that:

 

1) The Cardinals drafting well is a recent phenomenon; back in 2009/2010, Cardinals fans were saying the same things about their drafts versus the Brewers drafts that you are saying about the Brewers drafts versus the Cardinals drafts now.

 

B) Cardinals first round draft picks had very little to do with their World Series titles, except for Rasmus being used as trade bait. Lynn was good in the bullpen against MIL, but awful in the World Series against Texas. They won the World Series because they traded away recent draft picks for established veterans, signed veterans to free agent contracts, and hit big on a late draft pick who nobody had on their radar (Pujols).

 

3) It's not the first round where they have done well - it's later in the draft (Carpenter, Rosenthal, Adams, Siegrist) and an international free agent (Martinez) who they are lucky to have because his initial contract with Boston was voided. They've had plenty of misses in the first round.

 

4) For most of 2009-2013 the Cardinals were drafting ahead of the Brewers - they should have drafted better. 2009 - drafted seven spots ahead. 2010 - drafted behind but botched it (Zack Cox, Seth Blair, Tyrell Jenkins). 2011 - drafted behind but Wong has been arguably no better than Jungmann. 2012 - twice drafted ahead of the Brewers first pick, one a hit (Wacha) the other not so much (James Ramsey). 2013 - Brewers obviously didn't have a first round pick, Cardinals had two. To use your own words, you cannot seriously be arguing that the Brewers should have drafted as well as the Cardinals did during Seid's tenure.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Virtually anyone drafted seventh overall will be perceived as having that kind of value as a prospect.

 

Agreed, which is why dealing LaPorta as a centerpiece landed an ace pitcher. LaPorta was perceived as having that kind of value as a prospect. He didn't turn out to be a perennial all star - just like most of the 7th overall selections in the MLB draft since 1965. Twelve 7th overall selections since the draft started in the 60s never even made it to the big leagues (not counting four more guys selected 7th overall from some of the most recent drafts). The average career WAR for 7th overall selections that did make the show is 9.3...not too bad, but considering over 1/2 of that WAR value comes from three players (Kershaw - 53.5, Tulo - 42.6, and Frank Thomas - 73.7) over 50 draft years, the rest of the 7th overall draftees don't look so great collectively.

 

Don't get me wrong, quality MLB players have gone 7th overall...but there have been even more also rans and busts that reinforce just how much of a crapshoot the draft is.

[Austin Tatious]

If you look at a large enough sample size, you have sufficient data to determine drafting competency. Parsing out any given year is not sufficient due to sample size variations. The more fair evaluation is to look at a longer term period and look at the body of the work. No one could seriously say the Cards are anywhere near as bad as the Brewers have been in the first round over the ten drafts from 2007-2016 when you compare the bodies of work. For this discussion, the Cards have turned over a bit of their roster and have stayed contenders. They didn't need to collapse. They reload. Milwaukee can't reload with Evan Frederickson or Eric Arnett or Jed Bradley. Just by fluke, you'd probably hit on some of these high picks.

 

The Cards haven't had a top 12 pick in eighteen years. Someone born the last time the Cards had a pick that high would be in college. Yet they found Wacha, Shelby Miller, Lance Lynn, Piscotty over their last ten years. That's not a one or two year variation. When they have picks, they hit on enough. No one can hit on them all. But when you hit on enough, you reload. It's like a miracle for Milwaukee. Nothing to show for the last ten first round drafts on the Big League roster.

 

I agree that the Cards have further done well in lower rounds, including the likes of Carpenter and Matt Adams.

 

I'm going to drop out of this discussion now because I've said my peace. I'm not sure anything I said was that controversial and I suspect the Brewers are actually doing what I am suggesting. Take a look at what went wrong with the run of bad picks and figure out what in the analysis broke down, year after year after year. Were they looking at wrong attributes? Did they not take into account makeup? Did they overrate a good senior year as an older draftee and ignore a mediocre three years before that? Do they consistently mismanage the pool money? That's basic quality control.

[DHonks]

I think people here (and in other threads) are using revisionist history. Within one year of being drafted, Laporta was been seen as a sure-fire major leaguer, somewhere between solid contributor and longterm starter. He wasn't going to be Rafael Palmeiro, but more like a Richie Sexson. He had a low floor, and fairly high ceiling. The problem is that Laporta's injuries sidetracked that projection.

[monty57]

 

You cannot seriously be arguing that the Cardinals draft just as bad as Milwaukee. That's beyond absurd to the point of not having credibility. What we care about are recent picks because that is what is happening now with the big league club. Whether the Brewers drafted Robin Yount in 1974 is irrelevant because it is different scouting. Recency effect just shows you that, in their current staffing, the Cardinals have done much better than Milwaukee. This isn't some random statistic. There are scouts in place responsible for identifying players for drafting. There is a reason why the Cardinals are good and stay good. They re-tool without falling apart. Anyone can cherry pick bad choices. You're barking up the wrong tree. You don't want to go over a comparison of records. They win World Series, dominate the Brewers like a big brother, and re-tool without falling apart.

 

I love the Brewers but I don't believe in hiding your head in the sand and pretending everything is glorious. Since 2006, the only impact draftees have been Odorizzi and Lawrie. No one here is pretending that Coulter or Roche are impact players. I haven't seen any recent posts projecting them in our future lineups so we can all agree on that. They could improve, but it will be an upset if that happens. After 2012, we are looking at Medeiros, Ray, Kirby, and Clark. Let's hope for the best there. Will any of them be above average league players? You'd have to say incomplete right now but there are concerns about projectability. Since 2006, the Brewers top picks are not doing well. That's not an insignificant sample. Making excuses and pretending nothing is wrong is unbecoming.

 

Based on your logic, who cares what the Brewers did in 2006? Montgomery came on board in late 2014. That is really all that we need to judge at this point. He has since drafted three guys in the first round, two of which are in the top-60 prospects in all of baseball. Obviously we have no idea if any of the three that will pan out, but I don't care what Seid did; I care what Montgomery is doing.

 

Fair enough. Let's hope Montgomery looks at the comedy of errors in Brewer 1st round drafts over the last decade and figures out how to turn around the poor evaluating and projecting that has plagued the organization. I am all for giving Montgomery a fair chance. I suspect he's going to hit on some post first round picks among Demi Orimoleye, Chad McClanahan, Lucas Erceg, Payton Henry and some others.

 

A couple of points, though. 2006 was ten years ago, so it's a nice round number where we can look at a fair sample size. Players drafted in 2006 are still playing.

 

Second, as you no doubt are aware, Montgomery came through Milwaukee before he went to Zona. He was part of the earlier process, so his fingerprints can be found in what was done. Drafting is the culmination of scores of information from scouts, as well as the department's processing, analyzing, etc. It's not as if the scouting director decrees some selection in a vacuum. The whole process in that decision tree needs to be considered. What was it that made Milwaukee think a .240 hitter his junior year and then got hot his senior year made him worth the seventh overall pick? These types of evaluations need to be examined and corrected.

 

It's worth pointing out that the Brewers have had a boat load of high draft picks. If you look at where Kodi Medeiros was taken as a recent benchmark, 12th overall, the Cardinals haven't picked higher than 13th since 1998. There are factors for that as others have pointed out. But a contributor is also their drafting. In contrast, the Brewers have had numerous draftees that high or higher.

 

I think a lot has to do with ownership philosophy as well. Before the Brewers started winning, they drafted for upside. Once they started winning, they drafted for guys they hoped could help the MLB team as quickly as possible, and recently they have started picking for upside again. As noted earlier, LaPorta (drafted during the "how can we quickly help the MLB squad") was drafted to be used as trade bait, since they already had Fielder.

 

Regarding Medeiros, that was done right after the rule changes to the draft regarding "draft pool money," and he was selected ahead of where he was expected to go so that they could pay him under slot value, allowing them to draft and sign Harrison and Gatewood. We'll see if that pays off, or if they would have been better off signing the best player available, but at the time the Brewers had a horrendous farm and getting three high upside guys was pretty much universally praised. Now that we have a stronger farm, we seem to be looking for the best player available.

[sveumrules]

The Laporta pick was a great pick in the first round as it netted them Sabathia and there first playoff appearance in 26 years. Don't care what he did in the majors.

 

You're missing the point. The Brewers had failed thinking at the seventh pick in the draft and were unable to draft a player that made an impact. It doesn't matter that he was traded. The question is that, at the time of the draft, did the Brewers identify a talent that made an impact as a player, whether here or anywhere. They drafted a kid who hit .240 as a college junior and then jumped on him after a nice senior season. The Brewers failed to draft an impact player, at seventh overall.

 

Every team in MLB outside of the Rays (Price @ #1), Giants (Bumgarner @ #10) and Braves (Heyward @ #14) failed to draft an impact player in the first round of the 2007 draft. If the baseline for first round draft pick success is acquisition of an impact player, most teams fail with their first round pick every year.

 

Then again, as others have pointed out we did actually acquire a very impactful player via that pick, so I would say overall it would have to be judged a success.

[LouisEly]

LaPorta had a .978 OPS in Huntsville in >360 PAs when he was traded. He was a top-30 prospect pre-2008 and pre-2009.

 

If you want top-50 prospects back in return for Lucroy, etc., LaPorta fit that definition.